Your Multimodal Speech Model Says I Have a Face for Radio
Quick Take
This study introduces the first bias evaluation for multimodal speech recognition, revealing significant performance discrepancies in models like mWhisper-Flamingo and Gemini, with up to 4.05% increase in word error rates based on gender and ethnicity. Developers must address these biases as adding modalities may worsen outcomes rather than improve them.
Key Points
- First bias evaluation for multimodal speech recognition conducted.
- mWhisper-Flamingo and Gemini models showed up to 4.05% increase in word error rates.
- Performance discrepancies linked to self-declared gender and ethnicity.
- Developers are urged to evaluate and communicate limitations of their models.
- Adding modalities does not guarantee better performance and may introduce biases.
Article Excerpt
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2605. 30472v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large neural models have become better at language tasks, researchers are increasingly building multi- and omnimodal models that handle more modalities of data. One example is the expansion of speech recognition models to audio-visual data for noise mitigation and multimodal subtitling. While performance and bias have been studied extensively in the single-modality regime, it is unknown how new modalities affect this, even though they produce biases in humans.
We therefore propose the first bias evaluation of multimodal speech recognition, where we create videos pairing different faces with the same audio, and measure changes in speech transcription accuracy. We find large quality-of-service differences across mWhisper-Flamingo and Gemini models, with drops of up to 4. 05 word error rate points, across self-declared gender, ethnicity, and their intersection.
Our findings point to a priority for developers to evaluate, fix, and communicate such limitations, as providing more signals through additional modalities is not necessarily better, and may even lead to biased outcomes.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The REFLECT benchmark reveals that current LLM judges are unreliable, achieving below 55% accuracy in evaluating reasoning and evidence use, highlighting the need for improved evaluation methods for deep research agents.